Tracy Press Endorsement
The Tracy Press has shown their true Ostrich colors.
McCloskey’s campaign, fueled by Pombo detractors from the Democratic political machine has stirred up emotions, distortions and, quite frankly, a lot of hogwash. If this were any other public dialogue about the average citizen, a slew of lawyers would be filing lawsuits for slander on this citizen’s behalf.It could not have been written better had it been penned by Wayne Johnson, Pombo's political Machiavelli.
If anything, this 11th Congressional District primary is a good warm-up for the fall campaign where we expect even more false accusations will be leveled against Pombo.
While they did run several LTE's that expressed a contrary view, one was from a Democrat who switched to vote for Pete and just underscores one main point of the Tracy Press endorsement, that this is all a Democratic Machine hatched plot.
This should get most readers of this blog a bit pissed off, that everything was have written about is "hogwash" or "slander". While Cheri Matthews, editor of the Tracy Press, has written freely in her blog about journalistic ethics, she fails rather miserably when it comes to issues that are close to home town hero, Tricky Dick Pombo.
Tags:
posted by Wes @ 9:03 AM
18 Comments:
When you shovel shit with a bulldozer, some people are liable to dislike the smell. The political posturing of "Big Oil" vs motorists and rich vs poor and environment vs big business doesn't win elections. And it shouldn't. You're going to learn this lesson well in November unless you smarten up. Shovel some substance for a change.
So now the GOP can chose between Pombo and McCloskey, the Holocaust denier and recipient of al-Qaida money. Great. Did any of the morons at Defenders of Wildlife or Sierra Club look into this guy before they started to buy radio and tv spots for him? Pombo will use this - that's a gaurantee.
Stockton Record today:
McCloskey will return dubious contribution
SACRAMENTO - A man federal authorities have investigated for financing al-Qaida and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad wrote Republican congressional candidate Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey a $2,100 check on Friday.
Neither M. Yaqub Mirza nor an attorney who has represented him during the investigation returned calls from The Record on Wednesday asking why. But it could be because of McCloskey's friendship with the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, his long history of supporting American Muslims or his persistent criticism of Israeli foreign policy.
McCloskey said Wednesday he will return the money.
"This is America, so you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but I just don't want the appearance of impropriety," he said. "I'll send it back."
McCloskey said he could hardly keep such a contribution at the same time he's hammering his opponent in Tuesday's primary - seven-term incumbent Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy - for keeping money from felonious lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
McCloskey said he's never met Mirza, whose offices were raided by the FBI and the U.S. Customs Service in March 2002 as part of Operation Green Quest. Justice Department authorities have contended that Mirza is part of a money-laundering scheme to finance terrorist attacks.
Mirza has protested his innocence throughout the case.
But Mirza, a Pakistani native living in Virginia, who has a physics degree from the University of Texas, is no stranger to politics.
A review of state and federal campaign finance records shows Mirza has contributed at least $17,500 to political groups over the past 20 years.
He gave $1,400 to Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1987 and $1,600 to the Republican National Senatorial Committee from 2001 to 2002. Virginia Democratic Rep. Jim Moran received $3,950 over the years, and, most notoriously, Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney got $500 on Sept. 11, 2001. This last contribution made national news.
Moran returned Mirza's contributions after the March 2002 raid, saying he'd rather be "safe than sorry." McKinney kept the cash.
Mirza stopped writing political checks shortly after the raid; his last contribution was a $750 check to the Republican National Committee in July 2002, according to public records. He restarted his activity this February with a $2,100 contribution to Democratic challenger Tim Mahoney of Florida.
McCloskey is the only other candidate to receive a Mirza check this year.
Mirza's is not the sole contribution McCloskey has received from the Muslim community this year. Federal records show he held a fund-raiser April 9 at which he collected at least $2,300 from Bay Area Muslims.
McCloskey said he's spoken at mosques in Tracy, Manteca, Stockton, Lodi and Morgan Hill so far this campaign. He said he admires many facets of the religion - its treatment of women is not one of them - and that the community is overjoyed he's willing to listen to their concerns. He said it could help boost his vote totals next week.
"These are humble people," he said. "They don't want to make waves. I hope they'll vote for me."
McCloskey has been involved with Arab-Israeli affairs for decades, both as a congressman from the Bay Area during the 1970s and early 1980s, then later in the administration of the first President Bush.
McCloskey's wife, Helen, was a schoolmate of Queen Noor of Jordan, and he was friends with the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
McCloskey wrote an essay praising Arafat in the Beirut Daily Star in 2004 in which he called him "a great leader" and repeated Arafat's view that peace in the Middle East will not happen unless Israel and an independent Palestine can co-exist.
Closer to home, McCloskey is also chairman of the Council on the National Interest, a group dedicated to combating what it calls the "Israel lobby" in Washington.
He has represented Muslims in anti-discrimination cases and was the lawyer in a landmark case against the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, which allegedly had been spying on American citizens - including McCloskey's wife.
It was this case McCloskey spoke about when in 2000 he attended a meeting of history revisionists who argue that the Nazi Holocaust was overblown. McCloskey says he vehemently disagrees with that notion, but many in the Jewish community have labeled him as an anti-Semite for attending the conference.
McCloskey in 2002 defended Bay Area Muslim civic leader Ali Zaki, who was charged with helping an Osama bin Laden lieutenant raise cash under the guise of fund raising for the Red Crescent, the Muslim version of the Red Cross.
Zaki said he was duped by the terrorist, and the charges were later dismissed.
I can see it now....
"Defenders of wildlife, who spent millions pushing a jew hating, terrorist codling, ex liberal congressman from the 80's, known for his poor work ethic and appetite for honorarium paid in cash for speaking fee's, (yes it was legal then), has now announced their support for (Place the name of your favorite scape goat here) in his race to oust Congressman Pombo".
We Democrats shouldn't care if he is an al-Qaeda sympathizer, a Holocaust denier, or an adulterer. Anything or anybody but Pombo.
Read this, Jenny. He IS a racist holocaust denier.
Not Just a River in Egypt
Paul Norton "Pete" McCloskey Jr., a California Republican, served in the House from 1967 through 1983, leaving Congress after an unsuccessful 1982 Senate nomination run. Now he's back, challenging Rep. Richard Pombo, who represents parts of the Central Valley and East Bay, in a GOP primary next week. Pombo is expected to win easily, though some observers say he may be vulnerable to a Democratic challenge in November.
In his time out of office, McCloskey has had some dubious associations, to say the least. As blogger Eugene Volokh notes, in 2000 McCloskey delivered a speech titled "Machinations of the Anti-Defamation League" to the Institute for Historical Review, which according to the ADL was "a leading voice in the international movement to deny the Holocaust and vindicate Hitler and the Nazi regime" before going into "decline for several years."
In his speech, McCloskey said, "Earlier here today I listened to speeches about the courage of men in France, Britain, Germany, and New Zealand who have spoken out against the commonly accepted concept of what occurred during the Second World War in the so-called Holocaust."
He also said, "I don't know whether you're right or wrong about the Holocaust, but anytime a historian takes a position against Israel, that brings down their wrath and concentrated numbers and economic power." The antecedent of "their" is unclear.
McCloskey subsequently wrote a letter to the IHR's journal, the Journal of Historical Review, in which he distanced himself from Holocaust denial:
I want to make a polite suggestion. So many of my friends and relations personally saw the Nazi death camps during the last days of World War II that I myself am convinced that there was a deliberate policy of extermination of Jews, Poles, gypsies, and homosexuals by the Nazi leadership. Numbers of the specific events can be challenged, but it is my personal view that the IHR would be far more effective if it were to concede that a holocaust did occur and focus on the ADL's distortions of truth.
Now, let us stipulate that the ADL is a perfectly legitimate object for criticism, and the IHR's expression of its views is fully protected by free speech. The same is true of the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan, respectively, but imagine if a politician gave a speech to the KKK denouncing the NAACP, then offered the Klan a "polite suggestion" that it cut the white-supremacy stuff and focus on what's wrong with the NAACP. Surely such a pol would be drummed out of polite society.
And yet both the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle have endorsed McCloskey in the primary. The Times editorialized in January that a McCloskey victory would be "the best thing that could happen for the district, the state, the nation and possibly the Republican Party." The Chronicle said last week that "McCloskey defines the term 'straight shooter.' . . . Pete McCloskey has the credentials to make the case--and to shake up the status quo in Washington."
Why would these very liberal papers endorse someone who consorts with Holocaust deniers? Because McCloskey is, in general, a man of the left. He not only opposes the liberation of Iraq (the common, perhaps unanimous, view of IHR sympathizers); as the Chronicle notes, he also "spoke out against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and called for President Richard Nixon's impeachment in June 1973."
It seems that for the Times and the Chronicle, there are no enemies on the left--even those who are also on the most virulent fringes of the right.
We shouldn't concern ourselves with that. There are too many people anyway. Pombo supports policies that allow more people to infest the Earth. Gaia Rules! McCloskey Rocks!
Yo all youse anonymuss sourpusses.
Rocky here. I dunno. Just when Rocky tinks he's got dis blot figgered out and just when it looks like ButtaWipeO mighta been gonna say a second intelligent comment in a row, now dis. Youse are pathetic.
Duh only guy consistently whackin duh real enema in dis race (HINT FER YOUSE FRIGGIN MORONS: It ain't McNerney or Pretty Boy) is gettin an enema of his own, which is to be expected on account of duh fact dat dat's the way ButtaPombO fights - in duh terlet. Youse expectin maybe the friggin Avon Lady?
And its just a reminder of what our guy is gonna face in November, so lets stop givin 'em ammo against our own troops. Do youse friggin morons get it yet?
Let duh Repugs duke it out - from what Rocky see, duh Fightin Repug is a student of Vinnie Lombardo and can take care of himself. Of course it ain't fair to him but hey duh guy is a Marine and knows how to fight back. Us Dems would be smart to use dis occasion as a loining opportunity.
Rocky out.
I read through the thread and just think what a bunch of morons we are hearing from today. Suddenly, it does not matter that Pombo is attacking and destroying the environment for the benefit of the corporate donors. All that matters is that McCloskey gave a speech calling for a more rational approach to the US support of Israel. By the distorted reasoning of the morons on this thread, this makes him a jew-hating, racist, holocaust denier.
I, for one, am sick of the way people use the Holocaust to push their pro-Israel agendas. It was long ago and a different time. Yes, it was awful, yes, it was wrong and evil, and yes, many people suffered and died. But I can't see it being a perpetual reason to forever favor Israel at the expense of a more rational US foreign policy in the Middle East.
And this thing about an "Al-Qaida" sympathizer -- what kind of moronic comment is that? Candidates can't control who sends them money, but they can return the money when it is from someone questionable. That is what McCloskey did. Pombo, however, accepts money from all kinds of characters, including criminals, and then does their bidding in Congress. Somehow that is more acceptable to the anonymous morons posting here.
And if you want to talk Al-Q booster, try Pombo and Bush and the Iraqi War. That has increased Al-Q recruitment by the truckload.
Obviously, the anonymous morons posting are the same ones waving signs against McCloskey and erecting "walls of shame". Another bunch of blind religious fanatics. Couldn't make much headway in the real world, so have to come post here to further demonstrate what a bunch of idiots they are.
I can see it now: "Religious Nutcases for Pombo". They can carry signs and proclaim their self-righteousness as the animals go extinct, the forests are cut down, the parks are sold off, the whales are hunted, and the world warms to the temperatures of the hell they seem to love so much.
Umm...I thought it was apparent, but in case it's not: the anonymous comments are most likely coming from people who are not on our side. So wave to the pretty trolls. Just don't get too close. They might bite.
Also, VPO, I read McCloskey's speech to the IHR, and it wasn't about a more rational approach to Israel. To be honest, I feel McCloskey seriously crossed the line with the remarks that he made. Plus, he clearly demonstrated some serious error of judgement even to appear before such a group and give it a patina of legitimacy.
But the fact that McCloskey said some stupid, morally repugnant stuff does not make him an active bigot. And certainly, his stance on Israel as I understand it doesn't make him a bigot.
I have no problem believing that McCloskey does not hate Jews. I have no problem believing that McCloskey has since recognized the errors he made in giving the speech, and giving it to the audience that he did. But none of that makes the speech itself okay. Speaking to the IHR was not a shinning moment in McCloskey's life. And any defense of McCloskey's speech that presupposes a legitimacy to the speech, misses the boat entirely.
Yo Mr VPO.
Rocky here. Even Adrian asked about you duh udder day. She sed, she sed, "Where did Mr VPO go?" Rocky say I dunno, maybe yer brudder Paulie knocked him out fer a few days after he got downwind of 'em by missteak. You never know about dese tings.
Anyways, Rocky wit you on dis one. If dis is duh only missteak dis guy ever made, why he ain't doin so bad fer an old geezer. I mean dere ain't noone on dis blot can say dey poifect, and inasmuch as even ButtaWipeO sed sumtin ineffectual duh udder day fer duh foist time we can't even say he's a poifect moron. Right? He's an imperfect moron, according to Rocky's miscalculations. You know what I mean? Heh heh heh.
And yo Matt. Wit all do respect, you ain't poifect neither, if you ask Rocky. You shoulda takin down dat post about Pretty Boy - you know duh one - like you did duh one against Rocky's guy McNerney dat was equally unfair, so unfair dat Rocky ain't gonna repeat it, so be careful about throwin rocks around in dis here Green House wit duh Inner Circle made up of all dese glass walls and ain't none of 'em shatterproof from what Rocky see. Includin you.
If Rocky's memory soive him correctly, he's like duh only one on dis hear blot who ever admitted in writin to makin a mistake pubicly. To Pretty Goil I tink, and you can go back and read it and Adrian didn't even hafta ask Rocky to do dis like she sumtimes has to do. And Rocky know he made even more, like when he thought ButtaWipeO had redeemed himself after goin to Reform School.
Now I dunno whose dese anonymuss guys are - it could even be ButtaWipeO or Gibby Boy fer all we know. Here's what Gibby Boy himself sed just a few days ago, perhaps cuz he wasn't tinkin clearly about duh real enema or, like Rocky sed, it could just be he's hangin out wit ButtaWipeO:
"And don’t even get me started on McCloskey—he doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as either McNerney or Filson."
Maybe sumtin did get Gibby Boy started, right? Or maybe he just decided to start a war on anudder front like dat Neopolitan guy, youse know, duh guy who declared war on like 3 flavors at duh same time, instead of focussin on winnin duh war in hand, and I don't mean Iwreq. You know what I'm sayin?
But den again maybe neither one of dese guys played no role in dis at all. It just anudder weird ting about dese blots, as Rocky is loinin. Dere ain't no friggin RESPONSIBILITY, cuz you all hide behind aliens 'cept for Matt, Nick, Mr Keefe, and Rocky.
Everyone should leave duh Fightin Repug alone on dis blot cuz he's doin a lot of duh heavy liftin fer whichever of our guys wins. Rocky tink dis is a real cheap shot against duh Fightin Repug like Jenny sed, whoever did it.
Rocky out.
Thank you, Matt. McCloskey’s comments were vile. And even if he hadn’t made vile comments, speaking to that group to do anything besides lambaste them is offensive. Obviously I can’t speak to whether the man is a bigot, and while I disagree with some of the things people have noted above about Israel (and perhaps that’s true that many or all weren’t even legit), I concur that to charge anti-Semitism based solely on political disagreements is slander. But you just can’t shrug off associating with, not to mention commending, Holocaust deniers. Ever.
Oh, and, yes, I did say that, Rocky, and this is what I was referring to. Just didn’t seem worth it to get into it unprovoked. I’ve made plenty of terrible mistakes. And I still can’t imagine sinking low enough to praise the courage of Holocaust deniers. That’s completely beyond the scope of what I could ever, under any conceivable circumstances, allow myself to do.
Yo Delta.
Rocky here. What do you tink about dis latest ting? You are one of duh men of wiz-dom on dis blot, along wit Mr $.02, and both of youse are amongst its greatest tinkerers if you ask me.
Rocky out. Hope youse guys are in on dis round. BDW, dere's still one ting Rocky don't understand. Who decides when to fold duh hand and start anudder one? And anudder question: Who starts up duh hands? It always seem like duh same few people. Is dere an Inner Inner Circle behind the Inner Circle or what?
I think we have to look closely at what anonymous says in post # 6 above, the one below JennyBlue's post. This person pasted in an article accusing McCloskey of associating with Holocaust deniers. It seems everyone is buying into this meme, and the truth is once again losing out. So let's look at what the claims are here, in the posted article:
In his time out of office, McCloskey has had some dubious associations, to say the least. As blogger Eugene Volokh notes, in 2000 McCloskey delivered a speech titled "Machinations of the Anti-Defamation League" to the Institute for Historical Review, which according to the ADL was "a leading voice in the international movement to deny the Holocaust and vindicate Hitler and the Nazi regime" before going into "decline for several years."
First of all, the author is deciding for us what is "dubious" and what is not. Thank you, but I can make my own decisions on that. Next, look at what it says "according to the ADL" -- now doesn't that give you a clue that what follows is going to be highly skewed to what the ADL wants you to believe? Why should I take the ADL's characterization of the IHR as fact? So I went to the IHR's website, which states:
Detractors of the IHR have often mischaracterized it as a “Holocaust denial” organization. This smear is completely at variance with the facts. The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II.
The IHR goes on to state that they are questioning the Jewish advocates use of the Holocaust for political purposes, basically as a bludgeon for unquestioned support for Israel no matter what the consequences are to the US. Also, it questions if some of the Jewish claims have not been exaggerated for maximum political effect.
Before you knee-jerk jump all over my case on this, let me tell you that I have been to Auschwitz, Birkenau, and the Warsaw Ghetto. I have studied this issue. I know Jewish people who have lost close kin in the concentration camps. I firmly believe this was a horrible, horrible thing. Indeed, only a heartless person can visit these places and not feel the intensity of human suffering that went on there. It is overwhelming.
However, there is also a need to balance this emotional reaction with actual facts. I know that not only Jews, but many Polish, gypsies, and homosexuals suffered and died in these camps also. These were not Jews. Does this mean we owe Poland unquestioned continued financial and military support for time on end? Do we owe the gypsies this support (they certainly need it more than Israel)? Perhaps we would if they had as good a lobby as the ADL.
There is no reason we can't raise a skeptical voice here about the kind of support the ADL and other Jewish lobbying groups demand, and ask if maybe, just maybe, they are using this incident of WWII as a way to force their way for perpetuality on the US people. What other country gets this kind of support from the US? Why does a rich, well-off, heavily armed country need $6000 per citizen per year from the US? Because of the Holocaust, we cannot even question this? That seems utterly irrational to me.
In Post # 6, it says:
[McCloskey] said, "I don't know whether you're right or wrong about the Holocaust, but anytime a historian takes a position against Israel, that brings down their wrath and concentrated numbers and economic power."
If you don't believe that, watch what happens to me from posting what I did on this thread. I will now be slammed. I fully expect this. But I feel it is important to touch this third rail and say that yes, I believe that the Jewish lobby uses the Holocaust to its advantage to gain unquestioned, massive US support for Israel regardless of the consequences in the greater Middle East.
Next, from the post:
McCloskey subsequently wrote a letter to the IHR's journal, the Journal of Historical Review, in which he distanced himself from Holocaust denial
But the poster is still calling McCloskey a "holocaust denier". The conclusion can only be that the poster wants to believe what he/she wants regardless of the facts in his/her own post.
More from the post:
let us stipulate that the ADL is a perfectly legitimate object for criticism, and the IHR's expression of its views is fully protected by free speech. The same is true of the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan
OK, there is a word for this deceptive comparison of apples and oranges. We are not talking about the KKK or the NAACP, but the author jumps tracks here and tries have us equate them in our minds. The KKK has a violent and brutal history of riding around the South and lynching "negroes". To equate this brutal and frightening secret society of white supremacists with the IHR is a despicable debating tactic. It ruins any point the author was trying to make and proves that HE is the bigot, trying to brand McCloskey a "holocaust denier" or "racist" no matter what the cost to the actual facts is. The IHR is not the KKK, riding around burning stars of David on Jewish people's front lawns. They are not pulling people out of synagogues and stringing them up.
I don't support the IHR and don't have or want any association with them. But here is what they say on their web site, and I am not saying I agree, but that I think there are some things in it worth considering regarding the US foreign policy, Israel, and the Jewish lobbying:
the IHR has over the years published detailed books and numerous probing essays that call into question aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story, and highlight specific Holocaust exaggerations and falsehoods. IHR publications have devoted considerable attention to this issue because it plays an enormously significant role in the cultural and political life of America and much of the world. As a number of Jewish scholars have acknowledged, the “Holocaust” campaign is a major weapon in the Jewish-Zionist arsenal. It is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable Israeli policies, and to extort enormous sums of money, especially from European countries and companies.
As much as some may dislike the messenger, this viewpoint is something to mull over, if you can get over the knee-jerk reaction of shouting "anti-Semite" before even reading it.
Questioning the Jewish lobby's influence and seeking a more rational US policy towards Israel, one that better protects US interests, should be something we can discuss in this country. We can discuss this rationally and evenly from the perspective of all Americans and what is best for us. We can do this, even while also acknowledging the massive suffering that went on during WWII at the hands of the Nazis some 60 years ago, not only for Jewish people, but also for Polish, Russians, gypsies, and many, many others.
VPO --
Whoa, dude, maybe you need to lighten up, take a deep breath, and smoke something medicinal ;-)
There now. Feeling a little better this morning?
Okay, then. Let me start by stating that I’m really not interested in talking about Pete McCloskey and his role with the IHR. McCloskey has made an attempt to distance himself from his previous association with that group, and it’s up to each individual to judge for him or herself whether those rationales are acceptable.
But you have made a grave mistake in letting your affection for McCloskey and his candidacy color your perception of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR). In your haste to defend this organization, you have gone to the IHR website and credulously and unquestioningly quoted their despicable and disingenuous propaganda.
Additionally, you have dismissed the ADL and their reports on the IHR agenda as nothing more than the complaints of a biased Jewish lobbying group.
So let’s try something else here. Founded in 1971, the Southern Poverty Law Center “is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against white supremacists and its tracking of hate groups.
”Located in Montgomery, Alabama – the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement – the Center was founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin, two local lawyers who shared a commitment to racial equality. Its first president was civil rights activist Julian Bond.
”Throughout its history, the Center has worked to make the nation's Constitutional ideals a reality. The Center's legal department fights all forms of discrimination and works to protect society's most vulnerable members, handling innovative cases that few lawyers are willing to take. Over three decades, it has achieved significant legal victories, including landmark Supreme Court decisions and crushing jury verdicts against hate groups.
”In 1981, the Center began investigating hate activity in response to a resurgence of groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Today the Center's Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and tracks extremist activity throughout the U.S. It provides comprehensive updates to law enforcement, the media and the public through its quarterly magazine, Intelligence Report. Staff members regularly conduct training sessions for police, schools, and civil rights and community groups, and they often serve as experts at hearings and conferences.”
And here is what the SPLC has to say about the IHR
”American extremists who claim that Jews fabricated the Holocaust to discredit Hitler and to justify the dispossession of Palestinians have made common cause on the propaganda front with jihadists from the Middle East.
“At the forefront of this collaborative effort is the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the leading promoter of Holocaust denial in the United States. Founded in 1978, the Southern California-based IHR distributes books, pamphlets, audio and videotapes that purport to prove the Holocaust never happened.
“These ‘assassins of memory,’ as French literary historian Pierre Vidal-Naquet calls the Holo-hoaxers, also publish the Journal of Historical Review, which tries mightily to impress its readers with footnotes and other scholarly trappings.
“A recent issue spoke breathlessly of a ‘white-hot trend: the rapid growth of Holocaust revisionism, fueled by increasing cooperation between Muslims and Western revisionists, across the Islamic world.’
“Early last year, the IHR organized a conference on ‘Zionism and Revisionism’ that was set for Beirut that March. Billed as an opportunity for North American and European extremists to meet their counterparts in the Islamic world, the event was delayed and relocated due to complaints by Jewish groups and diplomatic pressure from the United States and Europe.
“An open letter signed by 14 leading Arab intellectuals also denounced the conference, which was eventually held in Amman, Jordan.
“The featured speaker at this scaled-down meeting, hosted locally by the Jordanian Writers' Federation, was French negationist Robert Faurisson, a longtime IHR advisor.
“Faurisson told a sympathetic audience that ‘Hitler never ordered or allowed the killing of anyone on account of his or her race or religion’ and that ‘the Germans suffered, in reality, a fate far worse than that of the Jews.’
”Driven by the proliferation of neo-Nazi propaganda and antagonism toward Israel, Holocaust denial has gained widespread acceptance across the Arab world in recent years.
“It's no coincidence that commentary on the IHR Web site is translated and posted in Arabic, as well as in German and English. IHR director Mark Weber takes pride in the fact that he and other "revisionists," as they like to call themselves, have been interviewed on Iranian state radio.
“Iran's Islamic fundamentalist regime has granted refuge to several European Holocaust-deniers, who were convicted of hate speech crimes in their home countries. Jürgen Graf, an IHR editorial advisor, fled to Tehran rather than serve a 15-month sentence in a Swiss prison.”
There’s more at their website. I recommend checking it out. Meanwhile, I think that your defense of Pete McCloskey via a proxy defense of the IHR is seriously flawed and you should seriously reconsider some of the things you have said in the above comment.
And by the way, I am far, far from being an unquestioning supporter of Israeli policies these days. But to suggest that residual guilt over the Holocaust is the only (or even significant) motive for massive US support of Israel, our only historically reliable ally in the Middle East, is a little naïve.
Thanks for the response Babaloo. I don't think we are that far apart. I agree that it is crazy for anyone to deny the Holocaust. I have been to the death camps, I have seen these historical parks. It is about like claiming the Civil War never happened.
And I don't believe I was defending the IHR. I was refuting Post #6's article. I was saying we should not blindly accept the ADL's view of the IHR as fact without considering that the ADL would be biased in their assessment.
To bolster the ADL's claims about the IHR, you bring up the Southern Poverty Law Center's view. Let's hear what they have to say:
At the forefront of this collaborative effort is the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), the leading promoter of Holocaust denial in the United States. Founded in 1978, the Southern California-based IHR distributes books, pamphlets, audio and videotapes that purport to prove the Holocaust never happened.
If this is true, the IHR is not only a bunch of nuts, but also a really despicable group. But this is 180 degrees opposite of what the IHR claims to be on their website. So who is right? The IHR or the SPLC? Is the IHR whitewashing their approach, when actually they out and out deny the Holocaust? Is the SPLC over-reacting and calling a group that questions the extent and impact of the Holocaust "deniers"? I guess one of us would have to read their books and Journal to say for sure.
If the former is true, that the IHR is being mis-characterized by the ADL and SPLC, and that their website remarks reveal their true intentions -- that is, to agree that the Holocaust is historical fact and they are only seek to question the influence of the Jewish lobby on US foreign policy, then I don't find that reprehensible.
But from what you have posted, and the vehemence of the other posters (not you or Matt, but the anons), I have to ask if maybe the IHR soothing web remarks are a guise for a deeper, truer Jew hatred, and that they actually do deny the Holocaust ever happened. If so, then that would be reprehensible, as they would really be just another hate group without anything worthy to add to the debate about Israel.
In any case, I was not defending them. I was defending the message that we should consider whether the ADL and other Jewish lobbying groups have tainted the debate such that there can only be unquestioned support of Israel. I am asking if this is in the best interests of the US.
As I said in the earlier post, I don't want anything to do with the IHR people or their group. I don't support them or have any association with them. I am sorry you read my post as a defense of the IHR when it was meant instead as a defense of allowing a debate on US policy towards Israel to take place without instant accusations of "anti-Semite".
Thanks for the clarification.
Post a Comment
<< Home